User talk:Cardstand

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Cardstand (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The article which I created concerning Jimmy Entwistle was neither attack, nonsense, nor inappropriate. It was written from a neutral point of view and thus not an attack. In addition, it contained relevant information about the subject and thus not nonsense. Furthermore, it was not inappropriate for it contained references to notable achievements the subject has done in addition to his significance. This significance was then restated on the discussion page. Rather than responding to my discussion page post, the editor banned me and my entire IP.

In addition, the blocking party himself noted in his article on the Deletion Wars that the inclusionists have won and that Wikipedia is growing extremely fast and thus will have many new articles every day. Adding information on this subject adds constructively to Wikipedia, and the article will be further expanded in the coming days. It is hypocritical for the banning party to have placed the block. Please unblock.

Decline reason:

Repeatedly removing speedy deletion templates and re-creating articles is not the correct procedure for contesting a WP:CSD nomination - as you were informed. That is what talk pages and hangon templates are for. The "hypocrisy" of the blocking admin relative to past, unrelated comments they have made is also irrelevant to whether or not your behavior was appropriate. Lastly, your article did not assert/demonstrate how the subject met WP:Notability criteria (WP:BIO in particular) and was thus, indeed, inappropriate for inclusion. The point, overall, is that you have been pushing disruptively to attempt to "force" the inclusion of an inappropriate article despite repeated warnings not to do so. Declined. - Vianello (Talk) 05:02, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.